Posted on 08/16/2005 11:23:20 AM PDT by woodb01
The Cult of Evolution – the Opiate of the Atheists
evolution is based on superstitious religious secular fundamentalism
for the week of August 15, 2005 - NoDNC.com staff
ARTICLE LINK - | | | - DISCUSSION LINK
(New Discussion thread, membership is free but required)
Evolution’s basic premise is that all “life” on the planet miraculously “emerged” through a bunch of accidents. Current evolution teaches that “natural selection” is how we continue to “evolve.”
Unfortunately for evolutionists their recent beliefs have been challenged on interesting grounds. A new theory has come about to challenge the blind faith orthodoxy of the evolutionists, that theory is intelligent design.
Think of it like this, evolution believe that if you have a deck of 52 cards and two jokers, and then shuffle the deck thoroughly, and throw the entire deck up in the air as high as you can, that eventually all of the cards will land, in perfect order, and perfectly aligned. The probability of this even happening one time in a billion years approaches zero. Then, to believe evolutionary "theory," you have to accept on blind faith that this same miracle of perfect order from total chaos has repeated itself millions of times to account for each of the plants, animals, and life on earth. We'll leave it there for now. It gets a WHOLE LOT MORE COMPLICATED for the evolutionary cult. On the other hand, intelligent design says that after the evolutionist throws the cards up in the air and makes a mess, the intelligent designer comes along and carefully picks up each card and stacks them all up together, in sequence, and properly aligned.
Stepping back from evolution long enough to use critical thinking skills not taught much in public education these days, it becomes quickly apparent that evolution is nothing but a silly religious belief – a type of “secular fundamentalism” – demanding cult-like superstitious faith in the impossible. If I have your attention, let’s take a careful look at what evolution requires us to accept on complete blind faith:
These are just a few of the major problems for the cult of evolution. They are certainly not the least of the problems. For example, under the “accidents” of evolution, where do emotions come from? Where does instinct come from? Why do humans have the ability to reason and understand right from wrong? And the list goes on. None of these innate characteristics can be explained by evolution.
Evolution is not science, because it can not be tested, verified, and there are no “false results.” The only “false result” to evolution is Intelligent Design (ID) because the theory of ID proves that evolution is false and therefore evolution adherents attack ID proposals with zealous fundamentalism.
Has anyone ever seen how zealously these evolutionary “secular fundamentalists” irrationally attack competing theories without answering the underlying problems with their beliefs?
Evolutionists routinely dodge issues like the origins of the universe because they know that if you stop and think hard about these issues, evolution falls apart as nothing but a widely held religious belief. If you can't explain where the raw material for the inputs to the "evolutionary process" come from, then you have no process. If you can't tell me how life started, and where its components came from, what the specific components were, what specific “accident” created “life,” then you have no process, only religious belief.
When you refuse to evaluate the inputs to a process, you have an incomplete process, it is unverifiable, and therefore un-provable, un-knowable, and an un-testable theory from a scientific perspective. You MUST at that point insert your suppositions and BELIEFS (i.e. secular fundamentalist religious beliefs) into the process. This is where it is no longer science, but superstition and blind religious faith.
It is understandable evolutionists would avoid many of these difficult questions because it exposes the preposterous "blind faith" required to accept evolution.
The cult of evolution is the opiate for the atheists.
Evolution is an atheist’s way to excuse their denial and rejection of god, it is their religion. To the degree that evolutionists dodge the difficult questions, like the origins of life's raw materials, how the five senses came about (how did one-celled organisms get the "idea" that “senses” were even needed?), how or why or where emotions come from, or a whole host of other questions, proves that it is not science, but secular fundamentalism. To the extent that evolutionists challenge competing theories such as Intelligent Design rather than answering the difficult questions or admitting that their “theory” has holes, it is not a scientific theory subject to the scientific process, but a cult based on zealous secular fundamentalism.
And on one hand, evolutionists expect you to believe that through a bunch of "accidents" life happened and "evolved" and then later, just the OPPOSITE takes place in the form of "natural selection." In other words, the "accidents" of life lead to deliberate selection. Under "natural selection" the "great god of evolution" decides who is the strongest and smartest and everyone else must be subjected to the superior race. Sounds a lot like what Hitler's National SOCIALISTS believed to me.
No amount of proving atheism, er, I mean evolution wrong will ever satisfy the secular fundamentalist religious cult of evolution. Even when those who support the theory of Intelligent Design are willing to engage in a dialog on the issue, the secular fundamentalists come out of the woodwork and shriek from the high heavens about how they refuse to prove one iota of their religious philosophy, but demand that ANYTHING that dares challenge their orthodoxy must be proven beyond any doubt. This is the essence of religious zealotry and blind religious fundamentalism--, it is the opiate of the atheists...
If those who adhere to evolution are genuinely interested in science, then they must evaluate the whole process, and if the inputs to that process, or many of its components such as the senses or emotions do not support the process then they must reject that theory (evolution) as unworkable. To do anything less is no longer science. But then again, evolutionists are not really interested in science.
Call me weak minded but I just don't have the blind, zealous, fundamentalist faith to believe that nothing created everything (the "Big Bang") and that life just spontaneously erupted from rocks, water, and a few base chemicals (evolution) through a bunch of "weird science" accidents. Step back, stop and actually THINK about the leaps of un-provable, totally blind-faith that evolution requires and unless you're one of its religious zealots, you too will reach the conclusion that evolution is a FRAUD!
Evolution, the opiate for atheists and the biggest hoax and fraud ever perpetrated on the Western World in History...
Additional Resources:
DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution (DNA is PROVING that evolution is a hoax)
The controversy over evolution includes a growing number of scientists who challenge Darwinism. (The fraud of Darwinism...)
Einstein Versus Darwin: Intelligent Design Or Evolution? (Most LEGITIMATE Scientists do NOT agree with Evolution)
What’s the Big Secret? (Intelligent Design in Pennsylvania)
What are the Darwinists afraid of? (The fervent religious belief in evolution)
The Little Engine That Could...Undo Darwinism (Evolution may be proven false very soon)
Actually, no one said it, since according to evolutionists, people in the bible are just myths.
bluepistolero
They could ping you when talking about you, but then I suppose, that might elicit a response from you, lol.
Pete, there is a book called "Denial of Death" by Ernest Becker that you might be interested in reading.
Most of what we humans spend our time doing is designed to keep us from thinking about the reality that we are all destined to die.
The book won the pulitzer prize in 1974.
Actually, a large percentage of we humans spend our time doing things that are designed to keep us thinking about the reality that we are all destined to die.
Ah, yes. 1974. What better topic for a book to garner a pulitzer prize in 1974?
Go suck a shotgun...
bluepistolero
"Go suck a shotgun..."
Still unable to make an argument. How about instead of sucking a shotgun, I just sit here and laugh at you instead? :)
Well, there would have to be a third way to explain life origins, since the theory of evolution does not cover life origins.
That’s what I thought too; that the theory of evolution does not cover the origin of life. But, I don’t think Harvard is expecting to explore a third theory of origins (at least no such third theory was mentioned), so there must be some degree of confusion existing in someone’s mind at Harvard. I don’t know that anyone is lying up there, but, properly, doesn’t origins belong in the philosophy or the theology dpt? Yet the Science Dpt seems to be all over the subject.
But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of repeating a lie. Creationists never do.
If I ever do (lie), I’m sure you’ll be the very first to let me know, and that you will justly rule on differences over disputed facts or matters of opinion. I’m a Presbyterian, by the way.
1. I'm a serious person. (caballero)
2. The guy is a Marxist troll (pinchi caverone)
3. Make up your own mind. (pensando?)
4. Don't bother me with it again. (hasta luego)
Yo habla Espaniol muy muy buen - although I don't write it well... (poquito)
Although the professor clearly is talking about abiogenesis, I don’t know that we can accuse the reporter of being a shyster. The morons of the press are fully capable of misreporting most any story, but the Harvard Science Dpt’s fingerprints seem to be all over this story, it’s obvious the money is going to that department, and evolution appears to be the focus of attention. I don’t think the reporter is writing anything but what he’s been told by professor Liu &c.
I’ve always understood that the subject of origins was properly a study for theology or philosophy, but clearly the Science Dpt is taking the lead here, and, in fact, those other departments seem to be out in the cold without a cent or a say. But, maybe we’ll discover it was all just a BIG mistake, thanks to a really stupid reporter.
Sorry if you can't read English.
Well I have my occassional problem, as do we all except the very few perfect ones, but my real difficulty sometimes is with slippery English.
If I may chime in with a few questions - has "evolution" ruled that the origin of species and the origin of life are mutually exclusive?
It seems that if the hypothesis is that species evolve from predecessors, and since "evolution" concerns itself with predecessors, then why not be concerned with the original predecessor?
At what point in the progression does "evolution" say "I'm done - can't go there"?
...or perhaps I should have written -
"... at what point in the REGRESSION does "evolution" say "I'm done - can't go there"?"
Well, actually it seems that if any of the three candidates you posited as possible agents in originating life were "the originating force", then that force may have acted at other times.
It seems that it would be quite relevant to evolution, if it were subjected to such a force even once after the "origin".
Not at all. :-)
What about the Cambrian explosion?
Is it that hard to follow the replies back? Do I already sense you're going to make a point of being dense here?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.